Lockheed Martin $29.5M Discrimination Settlement With DOJ and EEOC

The Justice Department and the EEOC announced a two-part, roughly $29.5 million settlement with Lockheed Martin on November 3 and 4, 2026, pairing a False Claims Act contractor-certification theory with a Title VII charge. The claims are allegations only, with no determination of liability.

Information last verified on November 5, 2026. This is a developing story; we update it as the record changes.

Jurisdiction scope: This is a federal matter. The claims arise under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e-2) and the federal False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. 3729 to 3733), enforced respectively by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice. The qui tam case is numbered 4:25-cv-00769-P; the Justice Department's release does not name the court, though the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Texas was a participating office. Lockheed Martin is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland. Nothing here describes any state employment statute.

What Happened

On November 3, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice announced a two-part settlement with Lockheed Martin Corporation totaling approximately $29.5 million, and the EEOC posted its version of the same announcement dated November 4, 2026. Under the first part, Lockheed agreed to pay $22 million to the United States to resolve Justice Department allegations that it violated the False Claims Act by falsely certifying, from 2019 to the present, that it complied with the anti-discrimination requirements in its federal contracts. Under the second part, Lockheed agreed to pay approximately $7.5 million to more than 1,000 employees to resolve a 2025 Commissioner's Charge signed by EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas alleging race discrimination against white employees under Title VII. Both agencies state that the resolved claims are allegations only and that there has been no determination of liability.

The Justice Department release carries press release number 26-1307 and is attributed to the Civil Division and the Office of the Associate Attorney General. A parallel version was posted by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Texas. The two agency texts are substantively identical, which is why the one-day gap between the DOJ date stamp and the EEOC date stamp is a publishing artifact rather than two separate events.

The Compensation Adder allegations

The conduct at the center of the government's theory is an incentive program. According to the Justice Department, starting in 2021 Lockheed operated a program called the Compensation Adder, or Comp Adder, that gave the top 20 percent of employees within each business area an additional pay increase on top of the annual company-wide increase. Managers were initially told to nominate on merit-based performance criteria, and higher-level leaders reviewed the nominations to keep the 20 percent cap intact.

The United States alleged that before selections were finalized, Lockheed ran a statistical analysis that flagged outliers based on the race and sex composition of the Comp Adder list. The government alleged that when a business group was flagged, HR personnel were supposed to ask leaders to re-review the merit basis for their selections without asking them to consider any protected characteristic.

In practice, the United States alleged, some HR personnel pressed leaders to clear race-related flags by directing them to add or remove particular employees based on race, encouraging removal of certain non-minority employees while adding minority employees who had not originally been nominated. The Justice Department quoted one HR employee telling business group leaders that "increasing POC [People of Color] for Comp Adder will result in removing equal count of non-minority," and a Director of Global Diversity and Inclusion informing HR personnel that "we will identify at least 11 additional PoC adds from other functions" to add to the Comp Adder list "and the level 2 Race flag will clear (assuming everything else remains static)."

The other alleged practices

The Comp Adder is only one of several practices the government described. The United States also alleged that Lockheed considered race or sex in hiring and promotion decisions in order to progress toward non-public, race-based and sex-based workforce composition goals held closely within the company. It alleged that a Management Incentive Compensation Plan included a Performance Metric tied to achieving specified goals for preferred demographics, with business units receiving quarterly summaries that color-coded progress toward demographic goals for women and minorities in green, yellow, or red. It alleged that in 2023 Lockheed set additional company-wide hiring goals described internally as aspirational plus goals that stretch beyond what is potentially achievable. Finally, it alleged that Lockheed offered certain training, mentoring, and leadership development opportunities on the basis of race or sex, naming an Executive Leadership Diversity Mentoring program as an example.

None of those allegations has been tested in court. A settlement of this kind resolves the claims without any adjudication, and both agencies say so in terms.

What the agencies said

Title VII bars employers from taking any employment action motivated, in whole or in part, by race.

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, press release 26-1307, November 3, 2026.

EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas framed the resolution around individualized treatment, saying that "Title VII requires employers to treat employees as individuals, ensuring that workplace opportunities, compensation, and rewards are not allocated based on race or sex." Associate Attorney General Stanley E. Woodward Jr. described the agreement as "the Department's fourth False Claims Act settlement resolving allegations of racial discrimination against employees," and the releases place it within the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative that the Justice Department launched in May 2025.

Both releases also state that this is "the largest class of workers to publicly recover under an EEOC settlement on account of alleged Title VII violations arising from or relating to a DEI program or practices," a claim about the number of workers rather than the dollar figure. That superlative is the government's own description of the EEOC's enforcement history, not an independently verified fact, and it is worth reading as such.

What the Law Actually Says

Two separate federal statutes are doing the work here, and they operate very differently.

Title VII: the prohibition is symmetrical

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act makes it unlawful for an employer "to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." That is 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1), and it is written in terms of any individual, without reference to which racial group the individual belongs to.

Several neighboring subsections matter for a compensation-program case. Section 2000e-2(a)(2) separately bars limiting, segregating, or classifying employees in a way that would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities because of a protected characteristic. Section 2000e-2(d) reaches training programs, making it unlawful to discriminate in admission to or employment in any apprenticeship or other training program. Neither agency cited that subsection, but it is the part of the statute closest to the government's allegations about race-restricted or sex-restricted development and mentoring opportunities.

Section 2000e-2(j) is the balancing provision: nothing in the subchapter requires an employer to grant preferential treatment to any individual or group because of a protected characteristic "on account of an imbalance which may exist" between the employer's workforce composition and the composition of the surrounding community or available work force. In other words, the statute says that a demographic imbalance, standing alone, does not create a legal obligation to correct it through preferences.

Finally, Section 2000e-2(m) sets the causation standard the agencies leaned on: an unlawful employment practice "is established when the complaining party demonstrates that race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a motivating factor for any employment practice, even though other factors also motivated the practice." That is why the agencies described the question as whether race played a part in a decision, not whether it was the only reason for it.

The False Claims Act: a payment statute, not an employment statute

The False Claims Act does not prohibit discrimination. It prohibits lying to get paid. Under 31 U.S.C. 3729(a)(1)(A) and (B), a person is liable who knowingly presents a false or fraudulent claim for payment, or knowingly makes or uses a false record or statement material to such a claim. Liability runs to a civil penalty plus three times the government's damages. Knowingly is defined in 3729(b)(1) to include actual knowledge, deliberate ignorance of truth or falsity, and reckless disregard of truth or falsity, with no requirement of specific intent to defraud. Material is defined in 3729(b)(4) as "having a natural tendency to influence, or be capable of influencing, the payment or receipt of money or property."

The bridge from an employment practice to a payment statute is the contract. As the Justice Department release explains, most federal contracts require the contractor to provide equal opportunity, to certify that it will not discriminate because of race or sex, and to take steps to ensure that applicants are employed and employees treated during employment "without regard to" those characteristics. That language tracks the Equal Opportunity clause at FAR 52.222-26, which obliges a contractor awarded nonexempt federal contracts or subcontracts exceeding $10,000 in aggregate value in a 12-month period to treat employees without regard to the listed characteristics, and which expressly lists rates of pay or other forms of compensation and selection for training among the covered employment actions. That clause implements Executive Order 11246, which Executive Order 14173 revoked in January 2025. It is still printed in the FAR because the regulation has not been formally amended, but CAAC Letter 2025-01 and its February 2025 supplement direct contracting officers not to include it in new solicitations or contracts. Most of the 2019-to-present period in the government allegations falls under contracts that did carry the clause.

Materiality is the hinge, and it has been made explicit by executive order. Executive Order 14173, "Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity," signed January 21, 2025 and published at 90 FR 8633, directs each agency head to include in every contract or grant award a term requiring the counterparty "to agree that its compliance in all respects with all applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws is material to the government's payment decisions for purposes of section 3729(b)(4) of title 31, United States Code," plus a term requiring certification that it does not operate DEI programs that violate federal anti-discrimination law. The same order revoked Executive Order 11246. The practical effect of that drafting is that a contractor's civil-rights compliance is positioned as a payment condition rather than a collateral regulatory obligation.

Qui tam and the relator's share

The whistleblower mechanism is 31 U.S.C. 3730(b). A private person, called a relator, may bring a civil action for an FCA violation in the name of the United States. The complaint is filed under seal for at least 60 days and is not served on the defendant until the court orders it, and the government may elect to intervene. Under 3730(d)(1), when the government proceeds with the action, the relator receives at least 15 percent and not more than 25 percent of the proceeds of the action or settlement, depending on how substantially the person contributed, plus reasonable expenses, attorney's fees, and costs. If the government does not proceed, 3730(d)(2) raises the range to between 25 and 30 percent.

Here the Justice Department stated that Tim Booher, a former Lockheed Vice President, will receive $4,400,000. Neither release gives a percentage. Under 3730(d)(1) a relator's share is paid out of the proceeds, and $4,400,000 is exactly 20 percent of the $22 million federal recovery, the midpoint of the intervened-case band. The qui tam case is captioned United States ex rel. Tim Booher v. Lockheed Martin Corporation, No. 4:25-cv-00769-P. We were not able to reach the underlying docket for this report, so nothing here describes the filings themselves beyond what the Justice Department stated.

The FCA also contains its own anti-retaliation provision. Section 3730(h) entitles an employee, contractor, or agent to all relief necessary to make them whole if they are discharged, demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed, or otherwise discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment because of lawful acts in furtherance of an FCA action or other efforts to stop a violation, with relief including reinstatement, double back pay, interest, and special damages. That protection has a three-year limitations period running from the date the retaliation occurred. It sits alongside the many other federal and state schemes covered in our overview of United States whistleblower protections, and it is one of the more generous ones on the remedies side.

What a Commissioner's Charge is

Most EEOC investigations begin when a member of the public files a charge. The Lockheed matter did not. Congress authorized individual EEOC Commissioners to initiate charges under Title VII, the ADA, GINA, and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, and a Commissioner's Charge is initiated simply by a Commissioner signing it, either on a proposal from an EEOC field office or from any person or organization, or on the Commissioner's own initiative. It must meet the same content requirements as any other charge and must be in writing, signed, and verified.

This is a rare instrument. The EEOC's own figures show that from fiscal year 2015 through fiscal year 2024 the median number of new Commissioner charges was 14.5 per year, far less than one percent of annual charge volume, and that only 8 lawsuits were filed based on Commissioner charges across that entire decade. Commissioner charges are excluded from the EEOC's mediation program, though they can be settled during the administrative process. The EEOC is also explicit that issuing a Commissioner's Charge does not mean the agency has concluded that the law was violated; it means the facts presented warrant investigation.

Analysis: Why This Matters

The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team.

The notable feature of this resolution is not its size. It is the pairing. Overlapping alleged facts were run through two statutes with different burdens, different remedies, and different payees: the Title VII track returned roughly $7.5 million to identified workers, and the False Claims Act track returned $22 million to the Treasury, of which $4.4 million went to the relator. An employment-law theory alone would not have produced a payment to the United States. A fraud theory alone would not have produced a payment to employees.

A pairing like this turns on materiality, and it is worth being exact about what carried this one: neither release cites Executive Order 14173, and the alleged false certifications are said to run from 2019 to the present, so most of that period predates the order. Under 31 U.S.C. 3729(b)(4), a false statement matters only if it has a natural tendency to influence payment. Executive Order 14173 instructs agencies to write into every contract and grant an express agreement that anti-discrimination compliance is material to payment decisions for purposes of that exact subsection. Whatever one thinks of the policy, the legal engineering is straightforward: it is an attempt to foreclose in advance the materiality argument a contractor would otherwise raise in cases built on contracts awarded after January 2025.

It is also worth being precise about the forward-looking obligation. The EEOC agreement requires Lockheed to comply with Title VII and with Executive Order 14151. Executive Order 14151, "Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing," signed January 20, 2025 and published at 90 FR 8339, is by its text directed at the federal government's own internal programs. It instructs OMB, OPM, and agency heads to terminate federal DEI offices, positions, and performance requirements, and its Section 4(c) states that it does not create any right or benefit enforceable at law or in equity. Reading that order into a private settlement agreement imports a standard whose operative text addresses agencies rather than contractors. What that obligation requires of Lockheed in practice is defined by the agreement itself, which is not public in the sources we reviewed.

Two things should keep expectations measured. First, Title VII's text has always been symmetrical, and Section 2000e-2(m)'s motivating-factor standard is decades old; the shift reflected here is in enforcement selection, not in the words of the statute. Second, a settlement is a negotiated end to a dispute, and the agencies themselves say the claims are allegations only with no determination of liability. A resolution tells you what the government was willing to accept and what the company was willing to pay. It does not tell you what a court would have found.

How This Affects You

This matter is a federal enforcement record, and the general points it illustrates apply broadly rather than to any particular workplace.

For employees of federal contractors, it shows that two different federal mechanisms can reach the same pay or promotion practice. Title VII provides individual relief through the EEOC charge process, and the EEOC notes that to pursue a Title VII claim, employees and applicants must first file a charge of discrimination with the agency. The False Claims Act provides no individual discrimination remedy at all; it compensates the United States, with a share to a relator who brings the information forward.

For anyone trying to understand how employment disputes are categorized, the distinction between a discrimination claim and a termination claim matters. Discrimination claims under Title VII turn on protected characteristics; separation disputes are usually analyzed first against the default rule of at-will employment and its exceptions, which we map in our state-by-state guide to at-will employment. Lockheed is headquartered in Bethesda, and the contours of that default in its home state are covered in our page on how Maryland treats at-will employment, while the qui tam case was filed in the Northern District of Texas, where the baseline is described in our Texas at-will employment rules. Where a separation is alleged to be unlawful rather than merely unfair, the analysis moves into the framework described in our wrongful termination resource.

For employers that hold federal contracts, the record describes documentation as the government's evidence. The allegations quoted in the release are internal communications and quarterly tracking summaries. Statistical monitoring of outcomes and individualized decision-making are different things under Section 2000e-2(m), and the government's theory was that the first was used to drive the second.

None of this is a substitute for advice about a specific situation. The legal significance of any particular pay decision, charge, or contract term depends on facts this article does not have.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. This article describes a federal enforcement resolution under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e-2) and the federal False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. 3729 to 3733), announced by the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The claims described are allegations only and there has been no determination of liability. Details were verified against primary government sources on November 5, 2026. Laws and enforcement positions change, and the application of any of this to a particular situation depends on facts not addressed here. Consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction about your own circumstances.

Related articles

• United States whistleblower laws: protections and how to report
• Wrongful termination laws by state
• At-will employment by state: exceptions and your rights
• Texas at-will employment rules
• Maryland at-will employment law

Last updated: 2026-11-05. This is a developing story; details verified as of 2026-11-05.

Frequently Asked Questions

How much is the Lockheed Martin discrimination settlement?

Approximately $29.5 million in total. That breaks into $22 million paid to the United States to resolve False Claims Act allegations and approximately $7.5 million paid to more than 1,000 Lockheed employees to resolve the EEOC's Title VII Commissioner's Charge, according to the November 2026 Justice Department and EEOC announcements.

Did a court find that Lockheed Martin discriminated?

No. Both the Justice Department and the EEOC state expressly that the claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only and that there has been no determination of liability. A settlement ends the dispute without any adjudication of the underlying facts, and the releases note that Lockheed cooperated in the resolution.

What was the Lockheed Compensation Adder program?

According to the Justice Department, it was an incentive program Lockheed began operating in 2021 that awarded the top 20 percent of employees within each business area an additional pay increase above the annual company-wide increase. The government alleged that selections were screened by a statistical analysis that flagged outliers based on race and sex composition, and that some HR personnel then pressed leaders to add or remove specific employees by race to clear those flags.

Who is Tim Booher and how much did he receive?

Tim Booher is a former Lockheed Martin Vice President who filed the qui tam whistleblower action, captioned United States ex rel. Tim Booher v. Lockheed Martin Corporation, No. 4:25-cv-00769-P in the Northern District of Texas. Under the resolution, the Justice Department stated he will receive $4,400,000. Neither agency release states a percentage; that figure works out to 20 percent of the $22 million federal recovery.

What is a qui tam relator's share under the False Claims Act?

Under 31 U.S.C. 3730(d)(1), when the government proceeds with the action, the relator receives at least 15 percent and not more than 25 percent of the proceeds of the action or settlement, depending on how substantially the person contributed, plus reasonable expenses, attorney's fees, and costs. Under 3730(d)(2), if the government does not proceed, the range is 25 to 30 percent.

Does Title VII protect white employees?

Yes. The text of 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits discrimination against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of that individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It is not written in terms of any particular group, and Section 2000e-2(m) establishes an unlawful practice where a protected characteristic was a motivating factor, even if other factors also motivated the decision.

What is an EEOC Commissioner's Charge?

It is a charge of discrimination initiated by an individual EEOC Commissioner signing it, rather than by a member of the public filing one. The EEOC states it is rare: a median of 14.5 new Commissioner charges per year from fiscal 2015 through fiscal 2024, far less than one percent of charge volume, producing 8 lawsuits over that decade. Issuing one does not mean the agency has concluded the law was violated.

How can a federal contractor's DEI program become a False Claims Act case?

Through certification and materiality. Federal contracts commonly require a contractor to certify that it will not discriminate and will treat employees without regard to race or sex, language reflected in the Equal Opportunity clause at FAR 52.222-26. Executive Order 14173 directs agencies to include a term making anti-discrimination compliance material to payment decisions for purposes of 31 U.S.C. 3729(b)(4). A knowingly false certification that is material to payment is the core of FCA liability under 3729(a)(1). Executive Order 14173 is prospective, though: neither agency release cites it in this matter, whose alleged false certifications are said to run from 2019.

Does the False Claims Act protect whistleblowers from retaliation?

Yes. 31 U.S.C. 3730(h) entitles an employee, contractor, or agent to all relief necessary to make them whole if they are discharged, demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed, or otherwise discriminated against because of lawful acts in furtherance of an FCA action or other efforts to stop a violation. Relief includes reinstatement with seniority, two times back pay, interest, and special damages. A claim must be brought within three years of the retaliation.

Is the $29.5 million the largest settlement of its kind?

The EEOC described the resolution as the largest class of workers to publicly recover under an EEOC settlement on account of alleged Title VII violations arising from or relating to a DEI program or practices. That is the agency's characterization of its own enforcement history in its press release, and it is reported here as such rather than as an independently verified ranking.